Facts
The petitioner, a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer holding License No. 116/2016 in Panchayat-Bardahiya, Saran, challenged the cancellation of his license vide Memo No. 2183 dated 18.12.2018 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhaura
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation order and a writ of mandamus to restore his license for distributing foodgrains and kerosene oil
Source reference: p. 2During the proceedings, it was disclosed that the petitioner had already filed an statutory appeal (P.D.S. Appeal No. 03 of 2019) before the District Magistrate, which remained pending
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is already being pursued by the petitioner
Source reference: p. 2-32. Whether the court should direct the appellate authority to expedite the disposal of the pending administrative appeal
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
Section 32(iii) [of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016] provides that any person aggrieved by the cancellation of a license may appeal to the District Officer within thirty days
Source reference: p. 2-3Section 32(v) empowers the Appellate Authority to stay the operation of the impugned order
Source reference: p. 2-3Section 32(vi) provides for a revision before the Divisional Commissioner if the appeal is not disposed of within sixty days or if the party is aggrieved by the appellate order
Source reference: p. 2-3Reasoning
The court observed that the petitioner had already invoked the statutory remedy provided under the Control Order, 2016, by filing P.D.S. Appeal No. 03 of 2019 before the District Magistrate
Source reference: p. 3-4The respondents argued that since the law prescribes a specific hierarchy for redressal—including appeal and revision—the petitioner must exhaust these remedies
Source reference: p. 2-3Applying these rules to the facts, the court determined that rather than adjudicating on the merits of the license cancellation under Article 226, the appropriate course of action was to ensure the efficiency of the existing statutory process
Source reference: p. 4Consequently, the court found it fit to mandate a time-bound disposal of the pending appeal to serve the interests of justice
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The High Court declined to quash the cancellation order directly but disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the concerned authority (District Magistrate, Saran) to dispose of the petitioner’s pending appeal (P.D.S. Appeal No. 03 of 2019) within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of the court's order
All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Vijay Kumar RayvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in